Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
republicans, what do you think happened to elections? 49% of republicans say that they thought acorn stole the election for president obama. acorn! let me explain acorn no longer exists. ifit filed for bankruptcy in 2010. these republicans are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. to say that the election was stolen is insanity to begin with. look, i think half of the republicans vote that way because they don't know what is going on. their pastor told them, or they think they're doing it right the other half are literally insane. we have 25% of the country saying oh, my god, 21 is coming and it's because of acorn and obama stole the election and put it on mars! you're insane! 49% of them think this. oh unbelievable! all right now we turn to the second issue general petraeus. now he was, of course, caught with the mistress, etc. his career is done. but before it was done, when he was in afghanistan and president obama was offering him as head job of the c.i.a. the head of fox news sends an fox news analyst to interview him and then delivers the real message. >> i got something to say to you, by the way.
the election, we didn't, the american people in every survey say this is where we're going to go, we're going to go along with the wishes of the american people and the republicans would get goodwill for doing that. they have to get out of this ideological headrow that they're stuck in and do something for the company. >> the polls give them plausible acceptability of this plan of trying to move forward and, as you say, with the will of the american people. real quickly, though, the jim demint announcement this morning. surprised by that that he's going to be leaving? >> not really. he is one vote in the senate. demint is a staunch conservative. he is pretty well connected to business because that was his culture before he came into the senate. fact is is that he may be able to do more for the conservative movement in this country as head of the heritage foundation than he would be what he's doing in the senate. he was the lead dog about going after obama care. well, that didn't work. there was no waterloo. he is somewhat scarred national live now as far as being legislatively inept because h
of the election. issues like entitlement reform and new revenue, but he's going to have to do something big. there's been a four-year course of he doesn't get along with either party, doesn't make the kind of effort you're talking about. i don't think there's any doubt he's going to, particularly john boehner, find some human interconnection moment that says we're doing this. and that's when the tough part starts. because once there's a leader deal, getting it through the house, whatever the terms of it is going to be super hard. >> i was with a group of businessmen last night, and their question was, why don't the people in washington do what we do when there's an important decision that comes up? why don't they get into a room and hammer it out, get some food, drinks, whether it's a couple days, get them helicopters, and go to camp david. you get in a room together -- >> the president -- the president doesn't like doing that. he's not comfortable doing that. and jon meacham, that is not the opinion of a pundit, that is a matter of historical record for his first four years. is it not? >> that's
an election to back him up and polls to back him up. the polls show 6 5% of americans go ahead and tax the rich. >> clayton: and questions whether we'd go back to the clinton era, 37 somewhere? at the end of the day the point what mr. forbes was saying, if the president does nothing, yes, the taxes go back up to those previous rates and also, defense gets cuts. forget about, we're not talking see questions station much, b -- sequestration? >> did you see what's happening in california, maybe that should be a barometer. tax increases in the state of california and raise revenue and look at the revenues have not gone up. >> a lot of republicans see california and americans, many democrats see california as a cautionary tale. what california has done and interesting and got then them ooh into a pickle. they have the battle initiatives where voters can go in themselves and vote for what they want and these all cost money. >> it all costs money. >> yeah, this is a mistake of california, right? since the late 70's, when these ballot provisions started going through, yes, you had a number of
is actually in a stronger position in his caucus than when he was elected two years ago. how is he doing, do you think? >> well, i think he's in a stronger position because republicans feel like they're in a weaker position. i think a lot of republicans who might prefer a different leader don't feel they have the luxury of that right now. in fact, even congressman kantor and others, who boehner didn't think he could count on the last time around, are being supportive. republicans are trying to calculate how much they have to give in now and is there a way to fall back with the idea of being able to move ahead in a more aggressive way next year. that's why you saw the president in a very preemptive way trying to rule out the idea of tying talks to next february to raising the debt ceiling. >> alan simpson, the co-chair of the president's deficit commission, was on the "today" show this morning and he said all this talk about either side being able to go off the cliff is ridiculous. let me play that for you. >> when you have leaders of parties and people from the administration saying i think
by the fiscal future. he could be concerned about every citizen in the state that he was elected to serve. his job -- those are his constituents and that's his job. >> look, i see where you come from. we have to think about this in a broader sense. if every state is looking out for itself, there's going to free ride. they're going to engage in policies that damage everyone's well-being over the long term by looking out for their own re-election prospects. these guys are being political rather than looking out for the long-term interests of their citizens, their states and also the country as a whole. rather than sub sid dies development in really dangerous areas. that's called moral hazard, and that's something that's really bringing the country to its knees economically. >> last i checked, you look out for yourself. you might say that's not a great idea, if you're in new york -- actually, no, if you're in new york you're concerned about new york and not about california. you focus on where you are. that's a reality. >> all right. thanks very much to both of us. please let us know what you thi
was elected to serve. his job, those are his constituents. that's his job. >> well, look. i see where you're coming from but we have to think about this in a broader sense. okay? if every state is looking out only for itself, what they're going to do is free ride. they're going to engage in policies that damage everyone's wellbeing over the long term looking out for their own re-election prospects. >> wait, wait. >> they're really political rather than looking out for the long-term interests of the citizens, their states and also the country as a whole. >> last i checked -- >> beforehand rather than subsidize development and dangerous areas and that's moral hazard and that's something that's bringing the country to the knees economically. >> last i checked you look out for yourself. >> that's public servants are supposed to do, roland. >> no. in new york, you are concerned about new york and not california. you focus on where you are. that's the reality. >> all right. we are going to hit pause there. please let us know what you think about that conversation on twitter and facebook page. >
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)